Excellent... This statement gives me hopeForumAdmin wrote:We'll end the trial concluding that yet another filtering system doesn't work like all the rest we've looked at.
But I just hope the limited test list doesn't "prove" that it works. I'd hate for anyone to read the results, see 0 false positives with no speed decrease and assume that the system is flawless and infinately scalable.
Is this something that can/will be released during the testing? I mean sort of like the network traffic stats Exetel already provide... Anonymous numbers. Or is that something that is too hard to set up for a short trial?NetworkAdmin wrote:The NetClean reporting page shows the volume of hits and traffic, and it should be possible to make reasonable extrapolations from there.
Who's deciding what's "illicit" as far as the trial goes? If a site not listed by ACMA happens to show up as blocked, will it be unblocked quickly regardless of content?ForumAdmin wrote:If it was an illicit site it would almost certainly have been deliberately blocked so there would be no need.
I doubt it. So far he's ignored thousands of letters & hundreds of industry experts. Personally I think the money should be directed into education and home level parental controls. I know some of it is going into education, but the filtering money should be going into home level hardware based solutions (much harder to bypass than a program you can uninstall).freyja wrote:Perhaps Mr Conroy will take note of any results and millions of tax dollars may be saved
I'd also like to voice my curiousness about what protocols are covered and what happens if non-standard traffic hits the port.
I'm also wondering if inbound traffic will be passed through the filter rules... If I'm hosting websites on my home server, are they potentially filterable (as far as this trial)?